In many Indigenous societies, such as among the many Aboriginal Australian peoples, the land is an essential part of their spirituality and belief systems.
Indigenous land claims have been addressed with varying degrees of success on the national and international level since the very beginning of colonization.
[3] which is a Latin term meaning "land belonging to no one"[4] In 1971, a group of Meriam people in Australia issued a legal claim for their ownership of their island of Mer in the Torres Strait.
This document, published in 1969, outlined 5 doctrines that left many indigenous leaders unsatisfied, sparking a meeting of the Indian Association of Alberta the next year.
It legitimized oral testimony and proved the nations in British Columbia had land rights unaffected by colonization.
The legal situation of Indigenous land rights in the countries of Latin America is highly varied.
Indigenous land rights were recognised in the 1840 Treaty of Waitangi made between the British Crown and various Māori chiefs.
[18] The establishment of the Tribunal is a landmark in the rights of Māori people, both socially and in terms of land tenure.By settling an allegation which they've agreed is justified, that the Crown breached the Treaty of Waitangi, they are enabling both the Crown and the Māori to get over that breakdown in the past Hon Justice Matthew Palmer, QC (2017)Additionally, New Zealand courts have usually accepted the existence of native title.
There are a variety of possible motives for passing this act, some of which include wanting to limit African squatters and encouragement from mining companies, although it is not known as to what the reason was.
[20] The Act had profound and lasting effects on land ownership, access, and economic opportunities for black South Africans.
It was one of the early legislative measures that institutionalized racial segregation, setting the stage for the more comprehensive apartheid policies that were implemented later in the 20th century.
[22] The general history of South Africa is heavily tied to the governing body's relationship to its Native population.
The foundational decision for Aboriginal title in the United States is Johnson v. McIntosh (1823), authored by Chief Justice John Marshall.
[24] In Johnson v. McIntosh, under the doctrine of discovery, it was ruled that Native Americans did not own their land, but rather had occupancy rights.
[24] In the years to follow, the Supreme Court has sometimes endorsed one viewpoint and at other times the other, as there is a big difference between the first two cases and the last.
[26] The Supreme Court has faced considerable controversy in cases dealing with natural resource treaties.
This bill allowed indigenous people to safely live in their territory without fear of their land or resources being taken.
[30] In February 2020 president Jair Bolsonaro proposed bill 191/2020, which will allow Indigenous territories to be opened up to mining and hydroelectric generation.
[31] This bill has caused push back from indigenous communities, it threatens the health of their land and the safety of their people.
Thus the ejido-system was created, which in practice should comprise the power of private investments by foreign corporations and absentee landlords, and entitled the indigenous population to a piece of land to work and live on.